The Minutes from the Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Trade
Secrets Act (Part Ii)

Wei-Ting Chou, Patent
Director, Patent Group I

¡½Master of Agricultural Engineering, National Taiwan
University

¡½Bachelor of Medical Engineering, National Cheng Kung
University

¡@

Comments from MediaTek Inc.
and the Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association:

1. In Article 10 of the
proposed amendments, the conditions are classified in a complicated
manner. In addition, it is suggested to adopt the stipulation that a
complaint is divisible.

2. In a company of a
foreign country, if there is an employee who would like to resign, the
company will ask the employee to give reasons for the resignation, but,
objectively, this will not inhibit job-hopping.

Comments from Dones Day
Attorneys-at-Law and the American Chamber of Commerce:

1. The law in force now
cannot protect trade secret. In addition, Paragraph 1 of Article 14 in
the proposed amendments only stipulates assistance obligation, but not
reversion of burden of proof. In addition, it should be stipulated that
once intentional behavior or gross negligence can be proved, an increase
in the amount of damage should be claimable.

2. A trade secret is not
only an issue of intellectual property, but also an issue of fair
trade. Therefore, the amount of damage should be considered with
reference to fair trade.

3. The punishment in
Article 13-1 in the proposed amendments should be based on a potential
damage offense.

4. Article 14-1 in the
proposed amendments is important. Although the Code of Civil Procedure
requires obligation of submitting instruments, its effect is still
limited. Not only the Trade Secret Act, but also the Intellectual
Property Jurisprudence, particularly, the Patent Act, should be amended.

Comments from Lawyer
Chang Ching:

1. Clause 2 of Article
10 of the law in force now stipulates there is knowledge or gross
negligence while indirectly acquiring, and Clause 3 stipulates there is
knowledge or gross negligence after indirectly acquiring. However,
Clause 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 13-1 in the proposed amendments only
stipulates there is gross negligence upon acquiring, and does not
stipulates the stipulation after indirectly acquiring; and the clause
only stipulates actual knowledge, but does not stipulate dolus
indeterminatus. As a suggestion, the phrase ¡§actually knows¡¨ should be
amended to ¡§known¡¨.

2. Clause 4 of Paragraph
1 of Article 13-1 in the proposed amendments does not stipulate that the
deletion or destruction should be made based on law and regulation. It
is, however, more than necessary to have punishment based on law and
regulation, or the penalty will be unfair. As a suggestion, the
language ¡§intends to use in foreign countries, Mainland China, Hong
Kong, or Macau¡¨ in Article 13-2 should be amended to ¡§intends to use in
jurisdictions outside the Republic of China¡¨.

3. For Scheme B in
Article 13-4 in the proposed amendments, the amendment suggests
narrowing the scope of the dual punishments. However, in fact, it
broadens the scope of the punishments. Scheme A stipulates the juristic
person and natural person, but, Scheme B, instead, stipulates the
corporate and non-corporate bodies. It is unclear why there is such
difference. Furthermore, Scheme B creates that either a complaint or
withdrawal of the complaint is divisible, which is incompatible with the
current complaint principle. This incompatibility is a serious issue.

4. In Article 14-1 in
the proposed amendments, there should be a balance between the burdens
of both parties.

Comments from the
Intellectual Property Court:

1. Attention should be
given to both the protection of enterprises and the guarantee of work
rights of general laborers to have appropriate and fair stipulations.
The constituent elements in either a civil or criminal event should be
strictly determined and clearly defined. A case is as follows. The
manager of a company had a copy of trade secrets on a laptop, and then
he resigned. The company, although actually knowing this, did not ask
him to delete them, but filed a complaint thereagainst after the
resignation. The Court found no infringement of trade secrets because
the company knew it. Accordingly, it is a question whether the
punishment for a behavior of ¡§bringing out¡¨ in Paragraph 3 of Article 13
is too stringent for an employee. However, there is a circumstance that
the company knows that the employee in service may take a copy of trade
secrets home for convenience, but this does not mean that an
authorization is given thereto.

2. A trade secret should
be kept in secret, and thus will be more valuable if known to fewer
people. Therefore, it is a question whether an illegal acquirement has
reduced the value of the trade secret.